UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2074

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:01-cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM)

Submitted:

March 25, 2008

Decided:

March 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district courts
orders denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and his motion
for

reconsideration.

We

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
after the entry of the district courts final judgment or order,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
mandatory and jurisdictional.

This appeal period is

Browder v. Dir., Dept of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361
U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district courts final order was entered on the
docket on December 14, 2005.
October 6, 2007.*

The notice of appeal was filed on

Because Reyes failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -